Allowed

Kandandi Jagjeevan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Oct 2022WP/8713/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that petitioners approached the writ court with unclean hands by suppressing a pending civil suit challenging their title in the writ affidavit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the appeal was allowed, with costs imposed on the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; Writ Petition dismissed; costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on each of the three petitioners.

Kandandi Jagjeevan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32e5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 356 OF 2022 & W.P. NO: 8713 OF 2022

¶6

WA NO: 356 OF 2022

¶7

. Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred Against the Order dated 1710212022 passed in WP 871 3 ot 2022 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between: (,

¶9

1 Mohammed Fasiuddin Khan, S/o late Nawab Sfram$il{Oain Khan, Aged about .^{60 years, Occ. Retired employee,R/o HNo .22-1-98O, Azampura,} r Hyd6rabad. \

¶10

...APPELLANT/THIRD PA\TY APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Kandadi Jagneevan Reddy, S/o, Late K. Badramma, Aged about years, Occ. Business.

¶13

Kandadi Narsimha Reddy, S/o, Late K. Badramma, Aged about. 51 years, Occ. Business.

¶14

Kandadi Sumanth Reddy, S/o, Late Ramreddy, Aged about, 30 years, Occ. Prjvate Service, All^'1 to 3 respondent Rl/o. H. No. 17-3-115, SRT Colony, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad.

¶15

All respondent 1 to 3 are rep. by its secretary, Khaja Hassan, S/ o. Late Khaja Ahmed Ali, Rl/ o. H. No. 17-3-115, SRT Colony, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad

¶16

. RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 3

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secetariat, Hyderabad

¶18

The Sub- Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad District.

¶19

The District Registrar, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶20

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION

¶21

lA NO:4 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under l;ection 15'1 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to stay the orr ers passed W.P.No.8713 ot 2022 dated.17- 02-2022 and pending disposal of th : main writ appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the Appe lant:SRl. SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRl. TARUN G. REDD'Y

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6:Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, GP FOR STAMPS & REGI JTRATION

¶26

WP NO: 8713 OF 2022

¶27

Between:

¶28

'1. Kandandi Jagjer,van Reddy, S/o Late K. Badramma, Aged about 54 years, Rep. by his GP, \ Holder, Ahmed memorial Educational Sooiety, Rep. by its Secretary, Khaj: Hasaan, S/o Late Khaja Ahmed Ali, F/o. H. No. 17-3-'115, SRT Colony, Ya .utpura, Hyderabad.

¶29

2 Kandandi Naras mha Reddy, S/o Late K. Badramma, aged about 47 years, Rep. by his GP, \ Holder, Ahmed memorial Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Khaj: Hasaan, S/o Late Khaja Ahmed Ali, F/o. H. No. 17-3-115, SRT Colony, Ya :utpura, Hyderabad.

¶30

3 Kandandi Suma rth Reddy, S/o late Ramreddy, Aged about 30 years, Rep. by his GPA Holder, Ahmed memorial Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Khala Hasaan, [ /o Late Khaja Ahmed Ali, R/o. H. No. 17-3-115. SRT Colony, Yakutpura, Hyde rabad.

¶31

...F,ETITIONERS

¶32

AND

¶33

1 The State of Tel; rngana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Dep artment. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶34

2 The Sub Registr rr, Azampura, Hyderabad District.

¶35

The District Regr ;trar, Hyderabad District, Telangana.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

Petition under l,rticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any rrppropriate writ, order or direction more p,articularly one in the nature of Writ of M :ndamus, declaring the action of the Respohdents herein in not registering the Gifl Settlement Deed pertaining to the land admeasuring 1850 Sq. Yds. in Sy. No. 1(312Ol1 of Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, Bandlaguda lvlandal, Hyderabad District as l,eing arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequent y direct the Respondents to receive, process and register the Gift Settlement De rd pertaining to the land admeasuring 1850 Sq. Yds. in Sy.

¶38

No. 103/20/1 of Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District presented by the Petitioners herein.

¶39

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to take steps forthwith to receive, process and register the Gift Settlement Deed presented by the Petitioners hereiLpertaining to the land admeasuring 1850 Sq. Yds. in Sy. No. 10312011 of Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District.

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. TARUN G. REDDY

¶42

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶43

The Court delivered the following:

¶44

¶45

/r,

¶46

THE H )N'BLE THE CH IEF TUSTI(:E TIIIA]- BTIT YAN

¶47

AND

¶48

THE {ON'BLE SRI IIISTICE C.V.RHASKAR REI)D.' I7.A.No.^{356of 2022and W.P.No.8713of} 2022 C-OI4I4ONJUD SMENT, (2arrlr Hon bb the Ct,telli,u.c u11at r3/'o..4t

¶49

Fleard . vlr. Suresh Shiv Sagaq leamed counsei for the

¶50

appellant; Mr. Tarun G.Reddy, leamed counsel lor respondens Nos.1 to 3; and tr[r. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, leamed Government l'leader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.4 ro 6.

¶51

Sflnt AJ peal No.356 of 2022 is directed esainsr the order darcd 17.02.2(22 passed bythe leamed Single Judgc disposing ol Sfl.P.No.8713 of 2022 filed by respondent Nos.l to .1 es the writ petltroners.

¶52

l. It may be mentioned that appellant <sup>/as nct rrr.ryed as a rrspondent ir the related writ petition. Being aq!jri.'r.r'd by the irforesaid ord :r, he has filed the related apperl rlrnp, with an rpplication fo-leave being I.ANo.1 of 2022. On Cr7.16.2022, this .,(-lrrrrt allowec the said IA by granting leave to Lhc ippcllant to file thc rclated apl ,eal.

¶53

\ \

¶54

..)..

¶55

Additionally, appellant had filed I.ANo.2 of 2022 for condoning the delay of 27 day in filing the related appeal. By the aforesaid order dated 07 .06.2022, delay has been condoned.

¶56

Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench has stayed operation of the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 and posted the matter today for consideration.

¶57

Respondent Nos.l., 2 and 3 as the writ petitionen had fited V.P.No.8713 of 2022 with the grievance that Sub-Registrar, Azampura, Hlderabad District was not registering the gift sefilement deed in respect of land admeasuring 1850 Sq. Yards in Survey No.103/20/I situated at Bandlaguda Khalsa Viliage, Bandlaguda lvlandal, Hlderabad District (briefly'subject propeny' hereinafter) and further sought for a direction to the said SubRegistrar to receive, process, register and release the said docr.rment.

¶58

¶59

7 . By order dated lZ .02.2022,, leamed Single Judge disposed of \fl.P.No.8213 of 2022 by directing the Sub-Registrar (respondcnt

¶60

No.2 in the writ petition) to accept the document prescnted by

/a-,

respondent Nor .1 to 3 for registration. However, it was clarified that if for any reason the document cannot be registered, then reasons would have to be recorded under Section 7l of the Registration I -ct, 1908 (briefly 'the Act' here,inafter) and communicated -o respondents No.1 to J.

¶65

Leamed :ounsel for the appe llant submirs that a;'rpellant was a necessary par ty to the writ proceeding inasmuch ru t.he sale deed on the basis o{ which the gift settlement deed^qas nnde, was put to challenge by -he appellant in O.S.No.452 c'l' 2022 before the VII Senior C vil Judge, Cty, 6uil C.or-rrt at Hyler,rbad. It was contended tl rerein that the earlier judgrnent and decree dated0l.07.2( 15 in O.S.No.1282 oi 2014 on the basis of wtich the sale deed wa; made, was obtained bv rtspondent Nos.1 to 3 fraudulently a rd in a colltsive nunner. In I.ANo.252 of 2022 fled by the appell .nt in O.S.No.452 of 2022, an order c,i rtttt.t^(ltlo was passed by thr civil court clarifying that the subject propeny should not be aliena:ed. In O.S.No.452 of 2022. rcsporxlent Nos.1 to 3 were arrapd as defendants. Therefore, they ur'rc iull,tr aware of the

¶66

\ \

¶67

¶68

proceedings before the civil court. Notwithstanding the same, this fact was suppressed in the writ affidavit whereafter the impugned order was obtained by respondent Nos.1 to J.

¶69

kamed counsel for respondens No.l to 3 submia that subsequently O.S.No.452 of 2022 has been dismissed on 22.09.2022 on an application filed by the defendants (respondent Nos.l to 3) under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Gvil Procedure, 1908 (CPq. According to him, the basic issue before the leamed Single Judge was r4rether the Sub-Registrar has complied with the requirement of Section 71 of the Act as per vihich the Sub-Registrar is under a mandate to record reasons if he denies registration of the document presented before hirn

¶70

W'e have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record including the writ affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 to J.

¶71

Paragraph 3 of the writ affidavit reads as under:

¶72

"It is respectfully subrnitted that the petitionen herein are the la.r,ful onnerc and possesson of entire

¶73

¶74

piece c I land admeasuring 1850 square prcls in survey No.103/20/1, Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, (hereinz ftcr refened to x 'the said properr/ having acquirer t the same tirough a sale deed beartg No.75l i of 2Ol5 execured by the Ml Senior Cvil Judge,^{t )ity Gvil C-oun,Hlderabad in furtherance of} the ord rn passed in O.S.No.1282 of 2014 on behalf of the defendan$ therein. The said sale deed was execute I for a laryer piece of land, tomlly admeasrnng Ac.42.30 guntas in suwey Nos.103/1, 103/fi rc3/12 and 103/20/ 1 of Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, B,rndlaguda Mandal, Hlderabad District, and the lan I .rdmeasuring 1850 square )ards is a pan of the sai I land. A copy of the sale deed bearing N.-o.753 I of 2015 is annexed herewith as Arurexr re P- 1".

¶75

Thrs, rt spondents No.1 to 3 stated that sale deed was executed on the strength of the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.1282 of 2014.

¶76

13.^'Iter-eatir r, respondent Nos.I. to 3 stated that for bettcr utilization of^,ht' propeny, they had decided to execute a gift senle ment deet in iavour of Ahmed Memorial Educational Societr,.

¶77

¶78

It is this gift senlenrent deed which was not being registered bythe Sub-Registrar.

¶79

\7hile respondent Nos.l to 3 had stated in the writ affidavit (para 3) about the iudgment and decree obtained in O.S.No.1282 of 2014, yet they did not mention about O.S.No.452 of 2022 fled by the appellant to set-aside the^judgment and decree dated 01.07.2015 obtained in O.S.No.1282 of 20L4. Respondent Nosl to I also did not nrcntion aboutthe $atut qto order passedby the civil court in I.A.No.252 of 2022 in O.S.No.452 of 2022 despite being panies to the civil suit.

¶80

In our view, the fact that civil suit was pending tith a ilntu Ero^{order on the darc of filing of the writ petitionis a material fact} and should have been disclosed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ affidavit. Non-disclosure or suppression of material facts by a litigant amounts to approaching the court with unclean hands; rather a fraud on the coun. The law on this point is well settled. Suprerne Clun as ri-cll as the Ftrgh C.ourts have time and again made it abundantly clear that a litigant t{ro approaches the court

¶81

¶82

t I

¶83

with unclean lands is not entitled to anv consirleration at the hands of tlre writ cor rrt, not to speak of granting of an1, rc^jief .

¶84

In the lrearing today, leamed counsel for.respondents No.1 to 3 nrade a s rbmission that order of the leamed Single Judge may be set aside r nd the matter rernanded back to fie leanred Single Judge^{for fres r consideration.}

¶85

1,7.^\We are afraid vre cannot accept such conte nti()n oi leamed counsel for r,,spondent Nos.L to 3. Admittedlv, n-'sponcient Nos.1 to I had supl ressed material facs while filing the wrir pctition. The position wou d not be improved on remand. For srrppression o[ material fact,, not only the order of the kramed Single Judge dated 17.02.1022 passed in \fl.P.No.8713 o{ )a22 stan,ls vitiated, even the fili rg of the writ petition stands vitiared. Therefore, qucstion of r:manding the matter to the leanrtd Sint:le .[udgc does not xnse.

C-onsequently, we set aside the order of the leamed Single Judge^{dated17 .02.2022 passedin \X/.P.No.8/13 of 2022 and dismiss} !fl.P.No.8Z13 of 2022.

¶90

Since respondent Nos.L to 3 had suppressed material facts before the Court and thereby had mislead the Coun, we impose cost of Rs.50,000/- on each of the three respondents l.a. ' respondents No.1 to 3. The cost has to be paid by respondents No.1 to 3 within a period of thirty drp- fL. today to the -Itlangana State Legal Services Authority.

¶91

!fl.ANo.356 of 2022 is allowed and V.P.No.87l3 of 2022 rs accordingly dismissed with costs.

¶92

As a sequel miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed. MEMORANDUM^{OF COSTS} WA.No.^{356 o12022and WP No' 8713 ol 2012}

¶93

Rs. Ps.

¶94

¶95

Cost Ouantified^{BY Cou( (That the} Responaent^{Nos. 1 to 3 aredirected} to oav each^{of the three respondents} sm tr n..so,ooo/-(FiftY^Thousand Thousand^{OnlY)to The Secretary'} Telanoana State^Legal ServiJes^{AuthoritY, HYderabad} within^{ThirtY daYs}

TOTAL

3x50,000/-

1,50,000/-

SD/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

:SECTION OFFICER

To,

PIV

'l . The Princil ,al Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, State of Telangana Secetariat, Hyderabad

¶108

The Sub- I legibtrar, Azampura, Hyderabad District.

¶109

The Distric. Registrar, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶110

The Secre ary, Telangana State Legal Service Authority, Hyderabad.

¶111

One CC to SRl. SURESH SHIV SAGAR Advocate IOPUCI

¶112

2 CCs to S Rl. TARUN G. REDDY Advocate [OPUCI

¶113

Two CCs t r GP for Stamps & Registration, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]

¶114

Two CD C rpies.

¶115

One Spare Copy

.v-

HIGH COURT

DATED:11 110t2022

COMMON JUDGMEI T

WA-No.356 ot2OZ2t Wp.No. Bt13of 202

¶123

.-a:
/,.1 s
4
il ,. 1g ntiT 2m
?

¶124

Allowing the V\A and dismissing the Wp with costs.

¶125

t.*,

Kandandi Jagjeevan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandandi Jagjeevan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Secretary,Ministry of Healthandfamily Welfare Dept,New Delhi Vs Principal, Vaadevi Ayurvedic Medical College, Warangal

Dr. Vikram Reddy Masani, Nizamabad Dist and 31 Others Vs Prl Secy, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Dept, Hyd and 63 Ot

The Prl.Secretary,Randb.,Transport,Hyd.,and 9 Otrs. Vs M/S. G. Eshwar Reddy, Hyd.,and 8 Otrs.

Prl. Secretary, Primary Education Department, Hyd and 3 Others Vs Chairman, Satya Deva Ttc College for Girls, Guntur and Another

M/S.M.R.F.Limited Vs Mrf.Mazdoor Sangh,and 3 Others

Khaja Aijazuddin Vs Union of India